MOB LYNCHING: THE BRAIN-TEASER OF INSTANT JUSTICE

This article was written by Prashant Yadav, a student of S.S.Jain Subodh Law College.

INTRODUCTION

Lynching isn’t outlined beneath the Indian system and there aren’t any punishments with regard of lynching. The law and order scenario is alleged to be at stake once incidences of lynching begin going downing a very society. The delineation of Mob lynching primarily mulls over an act of violence committed by a mob who presumes their actions to be called for, so as to maintain the social thread intact and preserve the social norms. Furthermore, Lynching is a form of instant justice being administered against a presumed offender without any trial or procedure established by law. It includes acts ranging from mob lynching; attacks by vigilantes, lynching, rape, harassment, assault, theft, etc. all have the earmarks of the instant justice by them as they find no faith in the procedure established by law.[1] Therefore, such acts of violence have no authority of law and are innate illegal and inhumane.

One of the strangest reasons for lynching today is cow slaughter, cattle smuggling or beef consuming. Whoever has brought in such ideology that India belongs to Hindus as Hindus are majority in India and cow is our holy animal and any kind of ill treatment towards cow is a crime against Hindus, they should be considered as anti-nationals as they are the ones spreading hate speech against another caste or community. According to English dictionary, lynch means to put to death, especially by hanging, by mob action and without legal authority. In other words, lynching is an unlawful lynching by an angry mob of people.

Mob lynching is popularly labeled as instant justice, by the so-called protectors of law or the vigilantes, because they believe their actions to be the need of the hour and required to do the justice in order to safeguard the possible alterations in the social norms and traditions. there is a sense of confidence in the minds of people carrying out such vigilante punishment to remain unscathed from the reach of the law.[2]

LEGAL ASPECT

In the landmark case of Ram Manohar Lohiya[3] and then reiterated in the recent case of Shreya Singhal, that a similar action may be a bone of contention in both public order and law and order situation when it reflects certain colors of disturbance to society as a whole and may strain public peace and its tranquility contrary to only a breach of a law which results in the infringement of law and order situation.

Currently, cases of mob lynching and other incidents related to instant justice are tried under section 34, 120B, 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 325, and 341 of IPC8. However, they fall short in dealing with such cases mainly because of ever-increasing rate of such incidences in recent times.

Mob Lynching is frequently thought to be a sorted out abhors wrongdoing to a great extent because of the way engaged with execution of such horrifying acts and the risk to peril. Undoubtedly, the political outfits and organizations behind aforesaid acts of violence harness the results of such crimes by moulding them into a political and social propaganda to brainwash one particular community against another and subsequently capitalizing the gains out of it in a manner of their choice namely, elections.[4]

Lastly, the menace of mob lynching is no new; it has been the reason for most extreme pressure and one of the prime explanations behind common brutality in numerous countries. Out of numerous conceivable reasons, manslaughter, scorn and unmerited exploitation seem, by all accounts, to be the significant ones. To conquer such cases, social equality law was placed in actuality notwithstanding many state laws to a great extent went for anchoring and securing ones social liberties against any conceivable damage, persecution, danger, terrorizing, and so forth the whole way across the nation.

RISE OF MOB LYNCHING IN INDIA

Mostly the victims of Lynch in India are minorities of that particular area such as Dalits and Muslims. There are many cases where we observe a Muslim being lynched in India. Hindus consider the Cow as a Holy animal while Muslims and Christian consume cow as part of their meal. Some of the Muslims have been lynched in the name of cow slaughter.

Kherlanji Massacre 2006:

On 29th September 2006, the first case reported in India relating to lynching. It occurred at Bhandara district in the state of Maharashtra. The lynching was due to a land dispute where a mob of at least 50 villagers barged into the house of the victim beating four members of the family and parading naked the wife and their daughter before they lynchinged them.

Dadri Lynching 2015

On 28th September 2015, an incident of lynching occurred at Bisara village, Uttar Pradesh. A group of Hindu Mob had lynched Mohammad Akhlaq and his son Danish accusing them of stealing and slaughtering a cow calf and storing the meat for consuming. This was the first case of a Hindu Mob lynching a Muslim in the name of cow or beef.

PRESENT SCENARIO

On July 17, the Supreme Court asked Parliament to consider enacting a law to deal with vigilantism. A bench led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra condemned the spate of lynching’s India has witnessed in recent years and reminded that “no citizen can take law into his hands nor become law unto himself”. A stringent law against vigilantism, the bench said, will instill “a sense of fear” among people “who involve themselves in such kinds of activities”.

‘Strong order’: In its order, the bench also proposed a slew of measures to curb mob violence. They include special courts to try such cases within six months and, as far as possible, hand down the maximum punishment allowed to the culprits; a compensatory scheme for the victims or their kin; stringent disciplinary action beyond what is prescribed in the service rules against officials who fail to deal with vigilantism properly.

Grover called it as a “strong order” and suggested that its key portions be translated in different India languages and read out to the public as “it reasserts the right to life and the rule of law”. As the grim threat of lynching casts a terrifying shadow over large swathes of the country, directions from India’s Supreme Court to all governments to take steps to prevent what it described as “horrendous acts of mobocracy” can only be welcomed.[5]

The court has asked Parliament to think about passing a special law on lynching. This, it maintains, is crucial to guard voters and make sure that the “pluralistic social fabric” of the country holds against mob violence.

What the Supreme Court judgment doesn’t squarely address is that lynching isn’t simply “mobocracy”; it’s collective hate crime. What the judgment additionally fails to acknowledge is that these hate crimes flourish most of all thanks to the facultative climate for hate speech and violence that is fostered and legitimized from on top of, that frees individuals to act out their prejudices; and therefore the freedom assured by state administrations to the perpetrators.

If present, at the same time as the slaughter of innocents unfolds, they don’t act, pleading later that they were outnumbered. In most cases, they are available in too late to avoid wasting lives, and extremely typically they register crimes against the victims, and drag their feet to charge and arrest the attackers. The members of the rabble in most incidents of lynching video-tape the act, and transfer the video-tapes. it’s deliberate (and criminal) destruction of proof that might are used against the killers. State home ministers, typically chief ministers, and senior police officers publically denounce not the members of the kill mobs however the victims and survivors. But no law — already on the statute books or a replacement statute — can in itself guarantee associate degree finish to the present malign mass affliction of hate lynching, that if ungoverned will tear US apart as people.

SUGGESTIONS

It has become more and tougher to inform these stories to a gaggle of youngsters while not leaving ground for clueless views to achieve area or perhaps answer queries coming back from curious minds. The crux of the matter remains the freedom enjoyed by these lynch-mobs, composed primarily of men of all age teams, brought along by rumors floated on social media and platforms like WhatsApp.

It is not the duty of a common man to require law into their own hands and penalize the criminal within the most brutal of the way. If the individuals aren’t happy with the functioning of the judiciary, they ought to approach the judiciary in another manner while not violence. The nation is for the individuals and therefore the individuals if they get along and mend the scheme by giving in solutions and concepts of the way to operate well would be a additional skilled manner and state however educated and learned one is. However our individuals fail such style of education and decency to consider solutions while not violence.

All Indians are my brothers and sisters is our motto, we should respect the other community as well learn how not to be effected by the others customs. Ideology of Hindutva is also the reason of lynching and the ones responsible are also the ones who lead the people making them believe India belongs to Hindus. Hindus see cow as a holy animal while Muslims consume beef many lynching cases have occurred which we have observed earlier.

CONCLUSION

There is a compelling need for at least certain specific provisions if no legislation for the crimes related to mob lynching. The specific provisions will make sure the speedy trials at the side of the rehabilitation of victims’ families and security of witnesses that is missing beneath the present law. It’s the proper time to grasp the gravity of situation and begin a constructive discussion over the mob violence and therefore the law required. The indispensible need of critical look up into the issue and do the needful cannot be pressed any more.

From the primary case of lynching determined within the Kherlanji massacre we’ve determined variety of cases today. It’s turning into a standard trend for Indians to kill somebody whom they feel is wrong and have hurt the feelings of the individuals. Are the people against the actions of the government where they feel taking law into their own hands is a better decision we cannot conclude what exactly the people have in mind.